Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#21

Post by whatshisface »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
beefield wrote: post #5

I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user…

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of…

What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? It sounds like what you're describing would be easy to game.

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#22

Post by paulie_a »

oehpr wrote: post #13
slipperymate wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On points 2 and 3, why limit this to companies with revenue exceeding x or y million USD?

I assume it is specifically to avoid killing startups in the crib.

If your business model requires that it should be killed in the crib

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#23

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whatshisface wrote: post #21
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of…

What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue? It sounds like what you're describing would be easy to game.

> What about a syndicated network of N companies, each with X-1 users and Y-1 gross revenue?

Size-dependent threshold exist across our tax and regulatory codes. Concepts like beneficial ownership [1] and affiliation [2], amongst others, address these issues.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership

[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#25

Post by beefield »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
beefield wrote: post #5

I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user…

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of…

I agree that I do not exactly like forcing business models to companies. But I think especially facebook and google are currently so difficult to avoid that their users should be given a fair choice on how to pay for their services, with money or with data.

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#26

Post by Trundle »

paulie_a wrote: post #22
oehpr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it is specifically to avoid killing startups in the crib.

If your business model requires that it should be killed in the crib

So current free to user companies just get to hold their market forever? Are you that happy with them?

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#27

Post by admax88q »

twblalock wrote: post #2

It's well known at this point that regulations tend to protect incumbents in many industries by making it more expensive for startups to compete. Industry support for regulations can seem counter-intuitive -- why would a company want to increase its cost of doing business? But it makes sense when you consider that the costs are an anti-competitive weapon. One example is when Philip Morris supported FDA regulations of…

We should be very weary of regulation that has support from those it regulates.

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#28

Post by protomyth »

If regulators really wanted to stop the abuse by Facebook and every ad company, they would outlaw the collection of any tracking data of users on any website except the ones you own (website operators have security needs). Embedded content in other websites (via any means including iframes) not owned by your company could not record tracking data or insert data into the user's browser (e.g. cookies, custom urls, Web SQL Databases). Any sharing of user data with other companies is illegal. Cannot abuse what you don't have.

I expect any legislation to make competition with Facebook very difficult.

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#29

Post by amluto »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
beefield wrote: post #5

I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user…

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of…

Why a size threshold? An American GDPR seems like a fine idea, especially if it’a similar enough to GDPR that complying with one gets the other for free.

Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

#30

Post by mattnewton »

amluto wrote: post #29
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow I like the size threshold but not the solution. Toying with business models should be a solution of…

Why a size threshold? An American GDPR seems like a fine idea, especially if it’a similar enough to GDPR that complying with one gets the other for free.

Size threshold is presumably to allow small startups to grow and explore models without crushing compliance costs. That’s the kind of regulation that protects incumbents who can afford the lawyers and software tools to do compliance properly.

There tends to be an inverse relationship between regulation in a space and incumbents springing up, for better or for worse

Post reply on HN